WALDERSEY INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD
At a Meeting of the Waldersey Internal Drainage Board hosted at the Middle Level Offices, March on Wednesday the 17th June 2020
PRESENT
P E Lankfer Esq (Vice Chairman) M J Mottram Esq J T Clarke Esq W Sutton Esq S J Flint Esq P M Tegerdine Esq N J Harrison Esq B Wales Esq
Miss Samantha Ablett (representing the Clerk to the Board) and Mr Morgan Lakey (representing the Consulting Engineers) were in attendance.
The Chairman enquired whether ALL Board members were happy for the meeting to be recorded. All Members were in agreement.
Apologies for absence
Apologies for absence were received from J E Arnold Esq, B R Darlow Esq and N Scantlebury Esq.
B.1145 Standing Orders
Miss Ablett reported that to allow the Board to modify the manner in which they hold meetings (for a temporary period) whilst special arrangements are in place to deal with COVID-19, Defra have agreed to the adoption of modified standing orders. Members considered the adapted set of the new model orders, as supplied by ADA, which include two extra clauses at the end of them which include a change to the way in which meetings are held to allow remote attendance.
RESOLVED
That the Board approve in principle.
B.1146 Declarations of Interest
Miss Ablett reminded Members of the importance of declaring an interest in any matter included in today’s agenda that involved or was likely to affect any individual on the Board.
The Vice Chairman declared an interest in minute nos. B.1156 and B.1164.
The District Officer declared a financial interest in minute no. B.1168.
Mr Tegerdine declared an interest in any matter in which Waldersey Farms were involved.
Councillor Sutton declared interests in all planning matters as a member of Fenland District Council and (as a member of the Middle Level Board) in matters concerning the Middle Level Commissioners.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
B.1147 Confirmation of Minutes
RESOLVED
That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board held on the 19th June 2019 are recorded correctly and that they be confirmed and signed.
B.1148 Death of Mr Joe Lankfer
Miss Ablett referred to the death of the Chairman, Joe Lankfer, on Sunday the 9th May 2020.
She reminded Members that Mr Lankfer had been a Member of the Board since June 1968 and had been Vice Chairman from 1973 to 1975 and -Chairman since December 1975.
Members observed a a minute’s silence in respect for Mr Lankfer.
RESOLVED
That the Board’s appreciation of the services rendered by Mr Lankfer be recorded in the minutes.
B.1149 Appointment of Chairman
RESOLVED
That P E Lankfer Esq be appointed Chairman of the Board.
B.1150 Appointment of Vice Chairman
RESOLVED
That M J Mottram Esq be appointed Vice Chairman of the Board.
B.1151 Bank mandate and National Savings & Investments
RESOLVED
i) That, in addition to Mr P E Lankfer, Mr M J Mottram be authorised to sign cheques and authorise payments on behalf of the Board.
ii) That Mr D Thomas, as Clerk to the Board, and Mr P E Lankfer, as Chairman, be the authorised signatories of the National Savings Investment Account and that the account of the Waldersey Internal Drainage Board with National Savings and Investments be changed accordingly.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
B.1152 Election of Board Members
Miss Ablett reported that the term of Office of the elected Members of the Board would expire on the 31st October 2020 and submitted the proposed Register of Electors applicable to the 2020 election.
RESOLVED
That the Register be approved.
B.1153 Vacancy in Membership
Consideration was given to the filling of the vacancy in the membership of the Board caused by the death of Mr Lankfer.
RESOLVED
That Mr Henry Lankfer be invited to become a member of the Board, if willing to do so.
B.1154 Board Membership
Miss Ablett reported that Mr Dan Matthews had resigned from the Board as he was no longer employed by Farmcare Ltd and Mr Nick Scantlebury had been appointed as his replacement.
RESOLVED
That Mr Nick Scantlebury be co-opted to membership of the Board.
B. 1155 Land Drainage Act 1991 Board Membership – Fenland District Council
Further to minute B.1112, Miss Ablett reported that Fenland District Council had also appointed Councillor B Rackley to be a Member of the Board under the provisions of the Land Drainage Act 1991.
B.1156 Flail mowing in the District
Further to minute B.1113, the Chairman reported on the flail mowing that had been carried out in the District during the past year and advised that although most of the work had gone reasonably well, due to the wet weather encountered not all of the programme had been completed. He confirmed that arrangements had been put in place for the forthcoming year.
RESOLVED
That Messrs Lankfer carry out the Board’s flail mowing operations for the ensuing year.
(NB) - The Chairman declared an interest when this item was discussed.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
B.1157 National Grid Gas – Pipeline at Long Drove, Waldersey
Further to minute B.1114, Miss Ablett reported that the Assistant Clerk had confirmed that although the agreement with Cadent Gas had been drawn up it not yet been finalised due to the valuation of compensation due to the Board still being outstanding. She also reported that the Assistant Clerk had contacted Brown & Co, a land agent in Kings Lynn, regarding the land valuation but due to COVID 19 situation had not yet received a response.
Miss Ablett advised that as soon as a valuation for compensation had been agreed with Cadent Gas the agreement would be finalised.
RESOLVED
That the Assistant Clerk obtain a valuation for compensation and finalise the agreement with Cadent Gas.
B.1158 A47 Guyhirn Junction Improvements
Further to minute B.1115, Miss Ablett advised that the latest position regarding this item had been included in the Consulting Engineer’s report for Members information and confirmed that all relevant parties including the Chairman and Vice Chairman had been involved in the discussions and were aware of the situation.
B.1159 Concrete Bridge – Point 51 – Handrail
Further to minute B.1116, Miss Ablett reported that the handrail on the footbridge at Point 51 had been replaced by Waldersey Farms.
B.1160 Footbridges – Waldersey Farms
Further to minute B.1117, Miss Ablett reported that a letter had been sent to Waldersey Farms who had advised last year that the bridge would be removed.
Mr Tegerdine advised that it had not yet been done and Mr Harrison confirmed that he had been asked to remove the bridge and it would be done very shortly.
RESOLVED
That Harrison Agricultural Ltd remove the bridge as soon as possible.
B.1161 Joint Pumping Station Maintenance Contribution from Hundred of Wisbech IDB and Potential Amalgamation with Hundred of Wisbech IDB
Further to minute B.1144, Miss Ablett reminded Members that at the last meeting they had asked for the joint pumping costs to be reviewed. A review had been carried out and the Treasurer had calculated costs based on area, being the basis of contributions at present, and on pumping capacity. Miss Ablett advised that the review highlighted there would be a 10% increase in contributions due from Hundred of Wisbech IDB if the joint pumping costs were calculated based on pumping capacity.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Miss Ablett reported that the internal auditors had advised that it would be beneficial if the arrangement between the two Boards could be formalised by way of a legal agreement.
The Chairman stated that as there was no formal legal agreement in place he considered this should be addressed and discussed in conjunction with the potential amalgamation. He added it was not only the pumping costs that needed to be reviewed but also the contingency plans for flooding and the amount of pollution the Board had been receiving in the last few years. He advised that at a meeting at the Middle Level offices it had become apparent that Hundred of Wisbech IDB’s contingency plan for flooding was the Waldersey IDB and that Waldersey’s plan was Rings End pumping station, the costs of which Hundred of Wisbech IDB were not making any contribution towards.
The Vice Chairman stated that although he was not aware of the contents of the historic agreement between the two Boards he considered it important that both Boards arrange a meeting to review the position and agree on a way forward.
Councillor Sutton suggested that this item, together with the potential amalgamation, be discussed and confirmed that he was an advocate for amalgamation and considered Hundred of Wisbech and Waldersey IDBs had a lot of areas in common as well as being in close proximity to each other. He added that an amalgamation would solve a lot of the issues arising and would also address areas of concern for members on both Boards. He considered a meeting of the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of both Boards and Middle Level Commissioners’ staff should be arranged so that all matters could be discussed and resolved amicably. He confirmed this was something he would support.
Miss Ablett advised that due to the number of Board meetings required and the process followed by the Environment Agency and Defra it could take up to 3 years, depending on when COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, before an amalgamation would be finalised.
She further advised that if the Boards approved to amalgamate and use differential rating an agreement between the areas would be required in order to arrive at the costs associated with the joint pumping station. However, if a single rate was approved then there would be no need for an agreement.
She enquired whether, in view of this timescale, Members wished to have a meeting to discuss a potential legal agreement between the Boards in relation to the calculation of the joint pumping station costs.
Mr Clarke enquired of the costs involved with the meetings, legal agreement and amalgamation before anything could be agreed.
Miss Ablett advised there would be no cost to the Boards for the Clerk, Assistant Clerk/ Solicitor or Treasurer’s time as this was included in the Clerk’s fee paid by the Board to the Middle Level Commissioners.
Miss Ablett enquired whether, once COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, the Board wished for a meeting to be arranged between the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of both Boards, together with the Middle Level Commissioners’ Assistant Clerk/Solicitor and Treasurer to discuss a potential amalgamation and requirement for a legal agreement in respect of the Joint Pumping Station costs, and for the outcome to be reported to the Board at their next meeting.
Councillor Sutton asked if it would be possible for the Board to hold a special meeting before next year’s meeting so as to not delay matters. Miss Ablett advised that as Hundred of Wisbech
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
IDB were scheduled to meet in November it would expedite the amalgamation process if a meeting could be held before then.
It was agreed that, if COVID-19 restrictions allowed, a meeting in person should be arranged as soon as possible to be held at the Middle Level Offices,to discuss a legal agreement being drawn up between the Boards and a potential amalgamation.
RESOLVED
That the Clerk arrange a meeting as soon as possible between the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of both Boards, together with the Middle Level Commissioners’ Assistant Clerk/ Solicitor and Treasurer, to discuss a legal agreement relating to the Joint Pumping Station costs and a potential amalgamation
B.1162 Pollution incident
Further to discussions with the Chairman, Miss Ablett reported that the polluted water had entered the Board’s watercourses from the industrial area within the Hundred of Wisbech IDB District and that having inspected the problem the Environment Agency, who were responsible for dealing with pollution in watercourses, had been unable to identify its source.
She added that the Environment Agency were in communication with Anglian Water and would be canvassing all businesses within the industrial area, once COVID-19 restrictions were lifted.
Mr Harrison advised that once the pollution had been identified in the Hundred of Wisbech IDB watercourses the weirs had been lifted, as instructed by Anglian Water, and they had monitored the condition of the water until it was considered safe to release into the Waldersey IDB District.
Councillor Sutton reported that having been informed by a member of the public of pollution in that area he had contacted Environmental Health who advised that Anglian Water and the Environment Agency were involved and had assured him that although the water did not look very good it did not contain any pollution that would harm aquatic life.
The Chairman reported that the Environment Agency had sent a letter to the District Officer advising that they had instructed Hundred of Wisbech IDB to raise their weirs to contain the water. However, after a day the water level had increased and came over the sluice into the Waldersey IDB District which was then pumped into the River Nene.
The District Officer enquired of the consequences to the Board if it was seen to be discharging pollution into the river.
Miss Ablett advised that provided the Environment Agency had been advised of an incident of pollution it was their responsibility to deal with it and not the responsibility of the Board.
The District Officer further enquired of the consequences to the Board if it was not made aware of pollution coming into the District.
Mr Lakey advised that as long as the Board was not seen to be negligent there would be no liability to the Board and as the pumps were automated and start on the level control it was out of the Board’s control.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
RESOLVED
That the Clerk write to the Environment Agency, Anglian Water and Fenland District Council requesting that, once COVD-19 restrictions were lifted, they complete their investigations regarding the pollution in the Hundred of Wisbech IDB District.
B.1163 Clerk's Report
Miss Ablett advised:-
i) COVID-19 Actions
That following the instructions given by government on 23rd March the following list of actions have been taken (this list is not exhaustive);
• Arrangements were made for all MLC staff to have the facility to work from home. This included access to email, and in most cases full remote access to work computers. This was implemented and fully operational by Wednesday 25th March. • MLC operatives continue to attend work but in a more restricted manor following NHS guidelines. • A skeleton rota to ensure that the office phones are manned has been put in place, post is received and processed and letters sent out where necessary. • Other temporary arrangements have been implemented to help support the continued operation of the office whilst the COVID-19 government restrictions remain in place, this includes allowing more flexible hours of work, allowing access to the office as and when required to collect or deposit papers making arrangements for the post to be collected and delivered to a safe location outside the office. • A licence to run video conferencing meeting was obtained and arrangements made to hold meetings by telephone and/or video. Chairmen were contacted at each stage as government advice emerged. • A policy statement was issued via the MLC website stating the actions the MLC were taking. • Consultation with ADA on more or less a daily basis were undertaken in the first few weeks encouraging them to take proactive action. Of value to us (and as called for) ADA have been able to secure IDBs ‘Key Worker’ status and have obtained approval from Defra to move to web/telephone conference meetings.
ii) Middle Level Commissioners and Administered Boards Chairs Meeting
That a fourth Chair’s Meeting was held on the 26th November 2019.
The meeting commenced with a presentation with slides covering the lottery funded ‘Fens Biosphere’ bid. This UNESCO designation would have no statutory backing but instead aims to draw attention to the unique nature of the area. Good practice sharing would be facilitated and a framework of support for positive action developed. The idea is to frame the application around the Cambridgeshire peat lands and the IDB districts which provide a network of interconnecting watercourses. As this designation would not lead to a set of actions which would be enforced but could have a positive impact on the area the Board were asked (at this stage) to consider giving its approval in principle to the bid.
RESOLVED
That the Board approve support for the Biosphere bid in principle
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Health and Safety discussions followed and it was agreed that the new arrangement with Cope Safety Management was working well.
The future vision for the MLC and IDBs was discussed and is covered as a separate agenda item.
On member training, after discussion, it was agreed that members would benefit from training on ‘communications and engagement’ as it was felt that Boards generally had challenges in getting messages across to the public.
The only other item covered in any detail was in relation to Board agendas and minutes. It was resolved that the Chairs supported the move to reducing the amount of paper leaving the MLC offices and it was also agreed, for reasons of efficiency, that Chairs be provided with an action points list as soon as practical after the meetings but in advance of issuing draft minutes.
That a fifth Chair’s Meeting was held on the 10th March 2020.
Topics discussed included health and safety, effective communications with the public, the move to electronic agendas, consideration of the level of planning information included in reports, planning fees and the work of WRE.
Planning and Consenting
One of the agreed actions from the last Chair’s meeting was that each Board be asked to consider the degree of delegation and reporting they require on planning and consenting matters. This was in response to several queries over the extent of detail being reported on such matters and the delays in issuing responses due to the number of people being consulted. I have outlined several possible options below to assist the Board but of course there are many other permutations and it is for the Board to decide which suits its interests best.
a) Remain with the current arrangements.
b) Continue to delegate all commenting on consent applications and relevant planning matters to the chairman and in his absence (or where he has an interest) to the Vice Chair. The Chair to have the power to decide if a matter should be raised at the board meeting for its consideration where legal timeframes permit this. All matters however to be reported generally more briefly within the Board report, ie number of applications responded to and number of consents issued or refused.
c) As above but leaving the Clerk with the power to determine the appropriate responses to consent applications and planning matters without reference to the Chair or Vice Chair.
RESOLVED
That the Board continue with the current arrangements.
iii) Application for byelaw consent
That the following application for consent to undertake works in and around watercourses had been approved and granted since the last general meeting of the Board:-
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Name of Applicant Description of Works Date Consent Granted
Chris and Emma Binns Filling of approx.. 6 metres of 22nd August 2019 private watercourse with hardcore and topsoil to widen and improve existing access – 1 Flints Cottage Jew House Drove
RESOLVED
That the action taken in granting consent be approved.
iv) Association of Drainage Authorities
a) Annual Conference
That the 82nd Annual Conference of the Association had been held at the ICE building in Westminster on Wednesday 13th November 2019.
The conference was very well attended and the speakers this year were:-
Stuart Roberts - Vice President National Farmers’ Union – an arable and livestock farmer who has also worked for Defra and Flood Standards Agency – who shared his views on the need for more radical and bold thinking on flood risk management and the supply of water for agriculture.
Bryan Curtis – Chair Coastal Group Network – Chartered Engineer and a member of CIWEM and ICE. Bryan is Chairman of the Coastal Group Network. This is a network of Councils, Ports, Government bodies who provide a collective voice for the coast and management of the shoreline.
Robin Price – Interim Managing Director – Water Resources East (WRE) Water Resources East is a partnership from a wide range of industries including water energy, retail, the environment, land management and agriculture who are working in collaboration to manage the number of significant risks to the future supply of water in the East of England. The NFU and ADA (via the David Thomas) have membership on the Board of WRE.
The conference was introduced by Robert Caudwell who asked all present to mark their appreciation of the work being done in the north east of England to respond to and manage the impacts of the floods. He stated his opinion that warnings at previous ADA conferences over the lack of river maintenance had fallen on deaf ears and that the flooding taking place at the time was clear evidence of the need to better balance capital investment with maintenance spending. He then went on to outline ADA’s intention to lobby all parties throughout the general election. This included sharing the 7-point plan detailed below;
1. Long term investment horizons in the face of climate change challenges Flood risk management delivers enduring benefits and authorities involved need to be able to plan ahead financially over multiple years and need to receive a sensible balance of capital and revenue funding, spread across the river catchments, in order to find efficiencies through climate change adaptation and resilience, and attract business investment. F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
2. Promote co-operation and partnership working to manage the water environment and reduce flood risk Close cooperation between flood risk management authorities, water companies, communities, business and land managers needs the continued strong support of government to deliver adaptive and resilient flood risk maintenance and similar activities more efficiently and affordably. 3. Total catchment management Total catchment management is now the widely accepted approach to managing our water and now is the time to increase and empower local professionals and communities to manage and operate these catchments together. 4. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) The next government needs to fully implement Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act 2010, to ensure future development can keep pace with the challenges of the changing climate, by ensuring that SuDS are maintained over the lifetime of a development. 5. Support local governance in flood and water level management decision making In some parts of England there is an appetite for greater local maintenance delivery on watercourses and flood defence assets than that currently afforded from national investment. This can be achieved via the careful transfer of some main river maintenance to local bodies or the expansion of areas maintained by those local bodies, such as Internal Drainage Boards, where there is local support and transitional funding. 6. Local Government Finances It is vital that Special and Local Levy funding mechanisms for drainage, water level and flood risk management continue to be part of this funding landscape to maintain the democratic link with local communities affected. 7. Brexit: Ensuring a resilient regulatory framework for the water environment The next government needs to provide clear policy messages about how they wish to make the delivery of environmental improvements to the water environment easier and more effective as we transition from European legislation such as the Water Framework Directive.
Unfortunately, because the conference was held during the pre-election period sometimes known as Purdah, which restricts certain communications during this time, there were no representatives available from the Environment Agency or Defra which significantly restricted the debate on flood risk management, funding and maintenance issues. However, there was considerable support from the floor of the conference for the view that lack of maintenance had significantly contributed to the recent problems with the River Don and the flooding of Fishlake village.
Officers of the Association were re-elected, including Lord De Ramsey as President and Robert Caudwell as Chairman.
Subscriptions to ADA would be increased by 2% for the following year.
b) Annual Conference
That the Annual Conference of the Association of Drainage Authorities will be held in London on Wednesday the 11th November 2020.
RESOLVED
That the Clerk be authorised to obtain a ticket for the Annual Conference of the Association for any Member who wishes to attend.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
c) Meeting of the Welland and Nene Branch
That the Meeting of the Welland and Nene branch of the Association was held in Holbeach on Wednesday the 12th February 2020.
d) Further Research on Eels
Further to minute B.1050(d), ADA have advised that the valuable research work being carried out by Hull University on eels and eel behaviour in pumped catchments will be continuing for at least another two years. ADA consider that the financial support to the project to date provided by the IDBs has been positive and noted by the regulator (EA), leading to positive engagement on finding practical solutions at pumping station sites. They therefore consider that it would be useful if IDBs could consider whether they would be willing to continue their annual contributions to this research over that period.
RESOLVED
That the Board contribute £50 per year for the next 2 years towards further research on eels.
e) Emergency Financial Assistance for Internal Drainage Boards
That whilst in East Anglia we have not had the unprecedented levels of rainfall which have occurred further north and in the west of the county in recent years this by no means equates to there being no risk of it occurring here. ADA have written to DEFRA seeking to formalise a mechanism for IDBs providing support to the EA in a major event to recover costs. An update will be given should there be any substantive movement from DEFRA on this matter as a result of this request.
v) Tactical Plans for the Fens Agreement
That the Environment Agency have set up a multi-partner group (FRM for the Fens) to steer work on developing strategic plans for managing flood risk in the lower Great Ouse catchment. This work is considered necessary to address the impacts of population growth and climate change, which are particularly relevant in this area. The EA is requesting approval to the approach being taken in principal and follows the letter sent in January 2019. The perceived value of this work is that it pre-apportions the benefits (land and property which would flood if not defended) so that applying for grant should be more straight forward and the amount of grant possible clearer. This should give increased certainty and clarity and resolves the issue of double counting benefits where for example a property is protected from flooding by both EA and IDB assets. Work on developing the strategy could take up to 15 years though and the proposal also therefore includes a mechanism for allowing grant-in- aided works to progress during this time on a hold-the-line basis.
RESOLVED That the Board approve in principle.
vi) Water Resources East (WRE)
That the Middle Level Commissioners’ Chief Executive has been appointed as ADA’s area representative on the Board of WRE. He will act as spokesman for IDBs who have an interest in the future management and provision of water in the East of England. This is F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
particularly important as government consider plans to make the area more resilient and as the impacts of climate change start to bite in an area of rapid housing growth.
To facilitate a place on the Board requires a modest financial contribution from all IDBs within the area covered by WRE. The MLC contribution is their Chief Executive’s time spent representing the Boards. For this Board the requested annual contribution is £50.70.
RESOLVED
That the Board approve the requested annual contribution of £50.70.
vii) Vision for the Future of Boards administered by the MLC
That Members will be aware that the Chair’s meetings hosted by the MLC has had an item on the agenda for the last few meetings on future planning of administration and delivery of operations for the Board’s collectively. As part of this process it has been agreed that members thoughts should be sought on what they envisage the collective future can and should look like to ensure the most resilient, delivery focused approach that can be achieved. Members should when developing their vision of water management in the fens in 2030 consider the challenges of maintaining representation, improving financial resilience, reducing duplication of work, the potential for cost savings, advantages and disadvantages of the various options available, the impacts of technology and sharing of resources and knowledge.
The general feeling of the Boards so far was that they recognised there could be problems with Boards and the need to amalgamate possibly ten years down the road but most seemed to be happy to continue with their current arrangements. However, this should remain under review and where appropriate amalgamations between Boards supported.
B.1164 Consulting Engineers’ Report, including planning and consenting matters
The Board considered the Report of the Consulting Engineers, viz:-
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Waldersey I.D.B.
Consulting Engineers Report – June 2020
Weed Control and Drain Maintenance The maintenance works carried out last year generally accorded with the recommendations approved by the Board at its last Annual Meeting.
Following discussions with the Vice Chairman, he requested a review of the back-up arrangements at the South Brink Pumping Station to ensure the Board is prepared in the event of a total power failure. The existing power cables, supplied when the station was originally built, are only capable of connecting one of the three pumps to a suitable generator. However, there are several plant hire companies that specialise in generators powerful enough to run all three pumps at the same time (minimum 800KVA) and also supply the necessary connection cables and fuel tanks required. Three quotes have been obtained from Anglia Farmers for the supply of a suitable generator, ranging from £850-£1300 per week plus delivery charges. Estimated lead times range from 6-10 hours, but all state they cannot be guaranteed and may change, dependant on demand. It may also be prudent to consider the infrastructure at the Pumping Station and any improvements that may be required, should a back-up generator need to be temporarily installed. An initial inspection has identified that a problem exists as the only point of access for the incoming power cables is through the station entrance door, thus preventing it from being closed and secured whilst the cables are in use. An easy solution would be to replace one of the double air bricks adjacent to the entrance door, with a vented lockable steel door that could be opened when required to allow the cables to be installed. Board members may wish to discuss whether or not they wish to proceed with this proposal.
Northern Area A recent inspection of the Northern Area has been undertaken revealing the district drains in the Northern area to be generally in a satisfactory condition and being maintained to a good standard.
The Main Pump Drain from the Hundred of Wisbech IDB outfall to South Brink Pumping Station (reach 1-2-3-4-5-6) contains numerous stands of reed and bulrushes throughout the entire length. Board members will also be aware of the historic issues with machine cleansing the Pump Drain and the difficulty incorporating large volumes of dredged arisings into the adjacent arable land if not carried out on a regular basis. It is therefore recommended that the aforementioned reaches are treated with an application of Roundup herbicide, followed by light machine cleansing, once the adjacent crops have been harvested, allowing access.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
It was also noted that sporadic stands of reed and aquatic vegetation are evident throughout the Belt Drove (reach 28-29-30-31) and Long Drove drains (reach 34-10-11-12-13-72) and it is recommended these reaches are included in this year’s Roundup herbicide programme.
Fortunately, the Belt Drove drain is also included in the Board’s approved, bi-annual machine cleansing programme this year, along with the Speedwell Farm drains (reach 20-23-24-25). Please refer to the following site plan for locations. This will be carried out with a contractor’s tractor mounted weed basket, removing the aquatic weed from within the water channel and depositing it on the bankside.
A further provisional sum has been included in the estimate to allow for any emergency machine cleansing, culvert clearance or bank reinstatement works that may be required in the district later in the year.
Southern Area A recent inspection has been undertaken, highlighting that several district drains in the southern area contain dense stands of reed and emergent aquatic vegetation. The Graysmoor Drove drain (reach 54-53-78-79-80-81-82) and Station Road Drain (reach 72-73) are considered to be the most severely affected and it is recommended these reaches are treated with an application of Roundup herbicide and lightly machine cleansed following harvest this year.
It was also noted that several other reaches within the Southern Area contain sporadic stands of reed and emergent aquatic vegetation and it is again recommended that the affected drains are treated with an application of Roundup herbicide to control the summer growths in order to maintain their good status.
Cases of illegal fly tipping have continued within the Waldersey catchment, predominantly in the Graysmoor Drove area. Household rubbish and tyres have been removed on several occasions by Fenland District Council’s (FDC) Rapid Response Team. It is worth noting that the FDC Team will only collect from the road side, as their Health & Safety policy does not permit them to work on banksides. As it still remains a general concern in the March area, a provisional sum has been allocated to allow for any further fly-tipped debris to be cleared or emergency machine cleansing/culvert clearance carried out as may be required later in the year.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
F: \Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
The Board’s flail mowing contractors, Messrs Lankfer, have indicated they will be available to undertake the Board’s flail mowing and weed basket requirements for this year. In anticipation of the Board’s agreement a provisional sum has been allocated within the estimated costs to allow for flail mowing, basket work and herbicide application.
The estimated costs of this year’s recommended Weed Control and Drain Maintenance works follow. Please refer to the previous plan for locations.
Northern Area
1. Machine cleanse Drain Main Pump Reach 1-2-3-4-5-6 1600 m @ 2.50 4000.00
2. Bi-annual machine cleanse (i) Speedwell Farm drain, 1350 m @ 0.50 675.00 Reach 20-23-24-25 (ii) Belt Drove drain 1050 m @ 0.50 525.00 Reach 27-28-29-30-31
3. Provisional sum Allow sum for emergency machine cleansing, culvert clearance and bank reinstatement works Item Sum 750.00
4. Flail mowing of drains in Northern Area Item Sum 1750.00
5. Allow sum for Roundup herbicide application Item Sum 350.00
Southern Area
6. Machine cleanse i) Graysmoor Drove Drain 1900 m @ 1.50 2850.00 Reaches 54-53-78-79-80-81-82 ii) Station Road Drain 480 m @ 1.00 480.00 Reach 72-73
7. Allow sum for Roundup application to control emergent weed and reed Item Sum 350.00
8. Provisional sum Allow sum for emergency machine cleansing culvert clearance or debris removal works Item Sum 750.00
9. Flail mowing of Southern Area District Drains Item Sum 2000.00
10. Fees for inspection, preparation and submission of report to the Board, arrangement and supervision of herbicide applications and maintenance Item Sum 1300.00
TOTAL £ 15,780.00
Orders for the application of herbicides by the Middle Level Commissioners are accepted on condition that they will not be held responsible for the failure of any treatment to be effective.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Pumping Stations Other than the matters described below, only routine maintenance has been carried out since the last meeting and the pumping plant at each of the stations is mechanically and electrically in a satisfactory condition.
South Brink The insulation resistance of the electronic soft starts and the no 2 motor windings remains quite low and continues to be monitored. The District Officer has reported pump 1 sometimes trips on overload during start up however checks show amp draw to be similar to that of pumps 2 & 3. It is possible that as the soft starts are now 21 years old and obsolete, they are starting to fail. Therefore, in the interests of reliability the Board may wish to consider their replacement.
During January it was noted that the motors on pumps 2 & 3 showed a drop in winding resistance to earth. This was considered to be due to the very wet conditions at that time. A recent inspection confirmed an improvement to a satisfactory level.
During June 2019 it was reported that the weedscreen cleaner would not travel right or left, an initial inspection indicated that the problem was mechanical and not electrical. An inspection of the trolley drive wheels found the flanged driven wheel was loose due to the loss of its retaining circlip. The trolley was repositioned in the track and new circlip and spacer shims fitted. However, the circlip groove is slightly worn and if the problem reoccurs a modification of the drive wheel retaining system will be required. At this time, it was also noted that the catenary cables outer sheath was cracked in two places but showed no sign that the inner cores were damaged or cracked (as can be seen left).
However, these are the original cables and due to the age of the machine the Board may wish to consider their replacement.
Earlier this year investigation into the Trolley MCB tripping was carried out and it was found that the idler trolley wheels were worn and responsible for its noisy operation. It was also considered possible that the worn wheels were binding on the track and jamming leading to the tripping. New wheels were fitted and to date this issue appears to have been resolved.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
The machine also requires new hydraulic ram seals and repairs to the rails in the overhead track which have come loose and need to be re-fixed. This will be carried out once the current lockdown is lifted.
A replacement upstream ultrasonic differential head transducer, which provides the machine start signal, has been fitted.
Rings End In January 2020 it was reported that the drain water level was extremely high and a site visit revealed that both motors had tripped out on earth leakage. No reason for this was found however there were reports of work being done on overhead supply lines and this could possibly have been the reason.
The Board may wish to consider remote monitoring of the station.
The weedscreen cleaner slack rope arm roller bearings were found to have seized and have been replaced, together with the pump low level probe, bracket and head.
Pumping Hours
South Brink Pumping Station Total Hours May 16- May 17- May 18– May 19- Run May 17 May 18 May 19 May 20 No 1 110 45 15 142 No 2 21 680 0 743 No 3 200 160 0 83
May 11- May 12- May 13- May 14- May 15- May 12 May 13 May 14 May 15 May 16 No 1 6 315 181 370 340 No 2 2 195 100 193 67 No 3 65 701 340 447 35
Rings End Pumping Station Total Hours May 16- May 17- May 18– May 19- Run May 17 May 18 May 19 May 20 No 1 100 510 179 680 No 2 120 180 85 108
April 11- May 12- May 13- May 14- May 15- May12 May13 May 14 May 15 May 16 No 1 157 928 421 738 284 No 2 18 82 68 70 44
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
At its last meeting the Board requested that its Pumping Stations be revalued for insurance purposes. The revised information follows:
Pumping Station Valuations-Waldersey I.D.B-Rings End Pumping Stn.
The following is an estimate of the maximum expected cost of rebuilding or replacing the pumping station on the same or an adjacent site following a catastrophic failure, eg a fire, a collapse or an explosion.
Site Name Waldersey I.D.B-Rings End Pumping Stn.
Site Data
No. Pumps 2 Station Capacity 0.85 cumecs Station built 1971
Description of Station
2 no. Allen Gwynnes 18″ Vertical Spindle Mixed Flow No. SC4/78309/1/2 with Mather & Platt No. 705686/1/2, 48kW @ 735 rpm motors and 1 no. dual drive gearbox. BHI Controls Direct on Line auto controls. E J Lord Heron Weedraker. Brick control building with mineral covered flat roof.
Valuation
Civils Works £905,445.00 M&E £327,300.00 Other £43,000.00 Total £1,275,745.00
Breakdown of valuation
Civils Works
Pump sump/pipework to surge chamber etc £423,600.00 Pipeline from surgechamber to outfall under A47 Roundabout £264,750.00 Fencing £10,590.00 Outfall in tidal river £105,900.00 Control building £21,180.00 Other Surge Chamber £79,425.00
M&E
Pumps etc £141,830.00 Control Equipment/cabling £43,640.00 Power Supply Public liability Motors/gearbox £21,820.00 installation £32,730.00 Weedscreen raker £87,280.00
Other
Approvals £10,750.00 Liaison and consultation £5,375.00 Design £16,125.00 Supervision £10,750.00
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Pumping Station Valuations-Waldersey IDB -South Brink Pumping Stn.
The following is an estimate of the maximum expected cost of rebuilding or replacing the pumping station on the same or an adjacent site following a catastrophic failure, eg a fire, a collapse or an explosion.
Site Name Waldersey IDB -South Brink Pumping Stn.
Site Data
No. Pumps 3 Station Capacity 3.75 cumec Station built 1999
Description of Station 3 no. Bedford Pumps BPC DB 60.11.8 600mm Suspended Mixed Flow Bowl No P0477/1- 3 Brooks Hansen SC 7-DS355SJ-D 140kW @ 735 rpm, Carlton Controls auto controls with Saftronics soft starters. E J Lord Heron Weedscreen Cleaner. Brick control buiding with tile effect sheet steel roof sheeting.
Valuation
Civils Works £1,006,050.00 M&E £392,760.00 Other £43,000.00 Total £1,441,810.00
Breakdown of valuation
Civils Works
Pump sump £529,500.00 Hard standing £10,590.00 Fencing £10,590.00 Outfall in tidal Nene £158,850.00 Control building £31,770.00 pipelines under A47 £264,750.00
M&E
Pumps £218,200.00 Control Equipment/cabling £87,280.00 Power Supply Inc in public liability Motors £32,730.00 Installation £54,550.00 Weedscreen/raker £90,000.00
Other
Approvals £10,750.00 Liaison and consultation £5,375.00 Design £26,875.00 Supervision £21,500.00
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
A141/A47 Guyhirn Junction Improvements – Highways England (HE) Further to the last Meeting Report, correspondence was received from Highways England advising that it was re-commencing the scheme, which has been on hold since 2017, and that its new “delivery partner”, Galliford Try plc, one of the UK's leading construction groups, “… are keen to develop a collaborative working partnership with you concerning a Guyhirn Junction pumping station & culvert survey in the near future.” In response Highways England was advised that “The Board look forward to working both with Highways England and Galliford Try in delivering the above scheme.”
Following a meeting in late January and subsequent internal discussions it was possible to advise Galliford Try on its initial proposal to undertake the survey of the discharge pipelines that serve the Board’s Rings End Pumping Station. In addition, assistance was given at that time by providing relevant copies of the Board’s records including both design/tender drawings for both the Pumping Station and the previous A141/A47 Guyhirn Diversion, together with relevant application forms and documents.
Discussions are continuing with Galliford Try and the appointed sub-contractor, the Lanes Group, concerning the provision of a Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) document which is currently awaited.
It is currently planned that the discharge pipeline will be accessed via the surge chamber and may require the Station to be “isolated” for a few days possibly requiring the careful transfer of water into the South Brink catchment. However, Galliford Try has been advised that:
“… it must be understood that should a flood event coincide with the investigation your company, the sub-contractors, may be required to postpone or cease work until normal circumstances are resumed.”
All relevant parties, including the Board’s Chairman and Vice-Chairman, have been involved in the discussions and are generally aware of the situation.
Re-assessment of South Brink Pumping Station This matter will be discussed under a separate Agenda item.
Planning Procedures Update Further to the last Board meeting the Clerk to the Board has received invitations and attended meetings held by both Fenland District and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough (KL&WN) Councils’ Developers Forum and the latter’s Inter-Agency Flood Group.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
The use of Infiltration Devices At the last Inter-Agency Working on Flood & Water Group meeting the issue of minor developments (less than 10 houses) not having adequate safeguards in place where infiltration (soakaway) drainage is proposed was raised, as no authorities are prepared to accept responsibility for checking the adequacy of designs or to police their effective implementation. This matter has now been added to the agenda for future meetings.
Local Land Charges Register (LLCR) A challenge to the legality of the requests by the Middle Level Commissioners to place notes on the Land Charges Registry was raised. This has resulted in KL&WN Council ceasing adding any such notes. Interestingly the stance being taken by Fenland District Council differs from this and it has advised that it holds notes on file which are passed on whenever a Land Charges Registry enquiry is made. In this way it can rightly assert that the notes are not on the Registry but are held separately.
Planning Applications In addition to matters concerning previous applications, the following 6 new development related matters have been received and dealt with since the last meeting:
MLC Council Type of Ref. Ref. Applicant Development Location Drainage/Irrigation Bankside Nursery, March Road, 112 F/YR19/0418/F Mr D Crockford Lagoon Rings End* Cambridgeshire & Peterborough 113 Enquiry Combined Authority Transportation Chain Bridge & Coldham Storage Land south west of Newsham Farm, 114 F/YR19/0811/F Budget Skip Hire (2 no) March Road, Rings End Residence 115 F/YR19/0967/F Mr & Mrs Prior (Extension) Station Road, Coldham Waste Combined Heat 116 Enquiry Medworth (MVV UK) and Power Facility Algores Way, Wisbech Residence 117 F/YR20/0246/F Mr S Smalley (Extension) Belt Drove, Elm
A development that is known to propose direct discharge to the Commissioners’ system are indicated with an asterisk. The remainder are understood to propose surface water disposal to soakaways/infiltration systems or sustainable drainage systems, where applicable. The applicants have been notified of the Board's requirements.
Various developments at Newsham Farm, March Rd, Rings End - Mr D Crockford (MLC Ref Nos 077, 083, 094, 104, 109, 110 & 112)
Further to the Board’s last Meeting Report and its resolution within Minute B.1122 Consulting Engineers’ Report, including planning and consenting matters (iii), a
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
planning application for the formation of a drainage lagoon in association with the existing plant nursery was validated by the District Council in late May 2019.
Whilst the proposal is described as a drainage lagoon it is actually dual purpose as the “harvested” water will be used for irrigation purposes inside the poly tunnels.
In its role as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), the County Council advised the District Council in its response dated 1st August that:
“…. we have no objection in principle to the proposed development, providing detail of the overflow mechanism from the lagoon is provided.
The above documents demonstrate that surface water from the proposed development can be managed through the use of a drainage lagoon, with minimum capacity of 2351m3.”
The County Council also requested the imposition of a planning condition which required the provision of a “formal overflow mechanism”.
The response included an informative advising that the Board’s consent may be required but incorrectly advised that the site is within the Commissioners’ catchment.
Planning permission was granted by the District Council at the beginning of October subject to the imposition of planning conditions including that requested by the LLFA. Rather unusually it did not include an informative advising the applicant of the need to seek the Board’s consent.
No detailed analysis of the proposal has yet been undertaken but the Surface Water Drainage Strategy, dated December 2018, prepared by the applicant’s water management consultant, the Geoff Beel Consultancy, that was submitted as part of the planning application submission, advises that the total “design” rainfall volume, collected from the polytunnels only, which is approximately a third of the site’s total area, equals approximately 2351m3/year ie 3919m2 x 0.6m.
It further advises that between March and September spray irrigation is undertaken inside the polytunnels for an average of 20 hours/week using two irrigation guns with a capacity of 0.90m3/hr (900 l/hour) each. Therefore, the current total volume of water used in a year = 2 x 20 x 0.90 x 28 = 1008m3.
Members will be aware of the constraints being placed upon water resources in the local area. As a general principle, the Commissioners and associated Boards promote
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
the use of rainwater harvesting; particularly if drought conditions become more regular, the impact of climate change becomes a reality and the potential implications if the planned “growth” within the District occurs.
It is considered that the benefit of harvesting rainwater will be to reduce the quantity of mains water having to be used with the present arrangements and should be encouraged. However, the “design” rainfall volume is in excess of that designed to be used. Therefore, it is likely that the excess could be discharged into the Board’s system. In addition, the storage provided does not appear to allow for receiving the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP), 1 in 100, event should one occur when the lagoon is full. Using a basic assessment this could be up to 1,160m3 when considering the whole site.
The current position is being ascertained with the applicant’s agent and in view of the Board’s previous resolution it is presumed that the Board is content for further discussion to occur to resolve any potential issues. However, to guide further discussion it would be beneficial to receive the Board’s comments and further instruction as it considers appropriate.
Replacement of the Main Outfall at Crooked Bank, Wisbech – Hundred of Wisbech IDB (MLC Ref No 111)
Scheme Works 2019 The commencement of this scheme was delayed until much later in the year than originally anticipated. The formation of the berm on the northern side of the outfall channel, which encroaches within the Board’s 9.0m wide maintenance access strip, is complete and the new twin pipelines were installed in late November. Unfortunately, due to the poor weather conditions and primarily on the advice of the crane contractors and the Fen Group’s Health and Safety Adviser, it was considered dangerous to continue further at that time, given the poor ground conditions.
As a result, the decision was taken to de-mobilise the site until the spring to allow the ground and working areas to dry and enable a safe working environment for the installation of the pre-cast concrete headwalls and other works.
Scheme Works 2020 The commencement of the works to install the pre-cast concrete headwalls and other minor works, possibly including some changes to the vertical alignment of the berm to accommodate the headwall units, is currently being discussed with the Fen Group.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
When the scheme re-commences on site it is likely that the outstanding works will take 4-5 weeks to complete. However, the re-instatement of the landscaping will be weather dependent.
The Commissioners’ Planning Engineer will continue to be the Board’s main point of contact to assist in the completion of the project and to ensure that the Board’s requirements are met.
March to Wisbech Transport Corridor [Previously known as the Re-opening of the March to Wisbech Rail-line - Scheme No 398128 (Wisbech Rail)] (MLC Ref No 113)
Further to last year’s Meeting Report initial discussions have been undertaken with representatives from Mott MacDonald, the engineering consultant working on behalf of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA), on behalf of the Risk Management Authority/Authorities (RMA) involved. Initially involving generic guidance and advice on the respective assets but also;
“The proposals are currently at the Feasibility Stage and feature many unknowns, however some initial guidance has been given by us, but Mott MacDonald has been advised that a more definitive response will be made to them on the Boards behalf in the New Year. Therefore, I shall be pleased if you will review and consider the relevant drawings and provide any comments that you may have. If there are any items that you consider inappropriate and that may place the proposals at risk please let me know.
During discussions with the Clerk he advised that the Board’s respective policy statements advise that:
The Board will:
(i) Co-operate and share information with relevant authorities in the exercise of their flood and costal erosion flood risk management functions.
(ii) Seek to work with all relevant local organisations in carrying out its flood and costal erosion management functions and environmental obligations.
As a result, it is considered that any discussions will have to be at the relevant Boards expense and that it would be against the Boards own policy to insist that the project be the subject of a Pre-application consultation as previously suggested.”
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Extract from Mott MacDonald’s Drawing No. 398128-MMD-00-XX-DR-D-0104 Rev. P01 showing the potential revised bridge over the Twenty Foot River and associated highway layout at the B1101/Coldham Bank junction to the south east of Chain Bridge
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Extract from Mott MacDonald’s Drawing No. 398128-MMD-00-XX-DR-D-0201 Rev. P01 showing the potential bridge and revised highway layout at Coldham
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
The designs are currently at a preliminary stage and are subject to change. The current proposals feature several relatively small attenuation features and structures. It is suggested that the prospective final solution may depend upon several items some of which are outside of the Board’s control, but it is suggested that one larger and appropriately placed feature would be of more benefit to the Board and easier to maintain than the current proposals.
No subsequent correspondence has been received but it is understood that the latest report, prepared by Mott MacDonald outlining the next steps in transforming this project, was presented to the Combined Authority at the beginning of March. Its contents have yet to be assessed.
Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility at Algores Way, Wisbech - MVV Environment Ltd (MLC Ref 116)
Board members may be aware of the proposal for the provision of an Energy from Waste (EfW) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facility to be constructed in Wisbech. Whilst it is appreciated that the actual site is within the area of the neighbouring Hundred of Wisbech IDB the Board pumps the water from this area and given that any adverse impacts, particularly on water quality, would have an affect it has been considered prudent, as a matter of good practice and governance, to also include the Board when discussion with the developer occurs.
The following is an extract from the recent Hundred of Wisbech IDB Meeting Report which gives some appreciation of the proposal and its potential implications together with the processes involved.
“This proposal is an emotive one and members will have specific views on it. However, members are reminded that any actions and subsequent resolutions need to be in the Board’s interests.
Initial contact In late November correspondence was received from MVV Environment Ltd concerning the proposal, followed by a letter from The Planning Inspectorate’s Major Casework Directorate advising that the applicant had requested a Scoping Opinion.
Members will be aware that a Scoping Opinion is a planning process where the applicant asks the relevant Planning Authority for its formal opinion as to what information should be included within an Environmental Statement to accompany an application for planning permission for the related proposal. F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
The Planning Authority concerned must provide its opinion within 5 weeks, therefore, in view of the proposal it was considered imperative to provide a response to the consultation, which was over the Christmas Period. An internal consultation was undertaken with the Board’s Chairman, Clerk, Solicitor and Conservation Officer. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the proposal and the absence of detail most responses were limited. However, a response providing general guidance on RMAs, early engagement and better design of infrastructure and other infrastructure projects in the area together with specific responses on Biodiversity, Hydrology and Major Accidents and disasters was sent to The Planning Inspectorate just before Christmas.
The Planning Inspectorate provided its opinion in January and its implications on the Board are currently being assessed.
The report accompanying the request for a Scoping Opinion The report prepared by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited, dated December 2019, advises that the proposed development comprises an Energy from Waste (EfW) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Facility, a CHP Connection, a Grid Connection, Access Improvements and a Temporary Construction Compound (which includes potential additional land for a substation).
The application site for the EfW CHP Facility, shown edged red on the extract from the Board’s District plan (below) and hatched brown on the extract from Figure 11.1a, (on page 18 of this report), forms part of a wider industrial estate currently operated by Frimstone Ltd as a waste recycling and transfer station.
Extract from the Board’s District plan showing the location of the proposed EfWCHP facility edged in red
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
The proposed CHP Connection, shown dashed green on the extract from Figure 11.1a, (on page 18 of this report) would be within the boundaries of the “mothballed” railway line to connect to the Nestle Purina factory.
There are two Grid Connection options including either a 132kV connection or a 400kV connection. Both options start at the EfW CHP Facility and share a common connection corridor running east of Wisbech where it then splits; with the 132kV route continuing north to Walpole, and the 400kV connection continuing east to meet an existing 400kV line beyond Emneth Hungate. The Grid Connection corridors, within the Board’s area of interest, are shown on the extract from Figure 11.1a, below. The applicant has not yet determined whether the Grid Connection would form part of the authorised development or be delivered via a separate agreement.
The Scoping Report states that there are two potential locations for Temporary Construction Compounds; one located immediately adjacent to the south east of the EfW CHP Facility Site, and the second located to the south of New Bridge Lane, the former Potty Plants site, these are shown hatched blue and black on the aforementioned extract.
The proposed access is via an improved section of Newbridge Lane shown purple on
the plan below.
Extract from Figure 11.1a Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning (area surrounding the main development site)
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
It is understood that the planning process under the Planning Act 2008 has six stages and these are shown on the diagram below. The proposal is currently at the pre- application stage and a meeting with the Board has been requested by MVV.
In order to further guide the Board, efforts are being made to ascertain the likely timescales involved and ensuring that the Board’s requirements are met.
NB. If this proposal proceeds care will be required as the Board’s Byelaws may be over ruled, as has been experienced on the A14 Upgrade and a Railway Improvement Scheme at Werrington, making it necessary to consider protected provisions or a separate legal agreement that reflects the Board’s byelaws within the DCO.
In order to assist further discussion, the Board is asked to consider its position and provide instruction on how it would wish us to proceed.”
Fenland District Council (FDC)
FDC Liaison Meeting A meeting was held at the end of March 2019. Issues discussed included navigation related matters, notes on the LLCR, the Wisbech Garden Town, the FRM for The Fens project, the Future High Street Fund bid for March etc.
Another meeting is currently being organised but will have to be delayed until the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) working restrictions are lifted. F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Emerging Local Plan 2019-2040 Fenland District Council is preparing a new Local Plan for the period 2019-2040 which, when adopted, will replace the current Fenland Local Plan (May 2014). The Local Plan is an important document which will “determine what the district will look like in the future and how it will become an even better place to live, work and visit.”
Issues & Options Consultation Between 11 October and 21 November 2019, the Council undertook a Public Issues & Options Consultation, held a ‘Call for Sites’ exercise, requested nominations for Local Green Spaces, and invited views on the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report.
The consultation was in a questionnaire type format most of the content of which did not directly relate to navigation, water level and flood risk management matters or questions are not relevant to our duties and functions.
Where the questions raised were not specifically relevant to us but may be related to issues upon which we would like to make a remark we made a “comment”.
Question 8: Renewable Energy A comment was made concerning the location of the nearest appropriate grid connection and the potential detrimental effect that the export cable/main connecting into it may cause for example, channel crossings, transport routes and associated remedial works, the formation/uprating/reconstruction of access culverts/roads, and other works to accommodate specialist construction machinery and associated infrastructure the impacts of which are not generally considered as part of the planning process.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Question 11: Minimise Carbon Losses from Wider Activities Should the Local Plan: 11a) Set out a specific policy on the loss of peat-based soils, and the carbon impacts of it? Guidance was given concerning the Lowland Agricultural Peat Taskforce when launched by Defra and the East Anglian Fens peat pilot managed by Natural England.
Question 12: Other Proposals to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Question 22: Transport 12b) Should the Local Plan make provision of cycle and footways, which are designed in a way so that they become the natural choice to use for short journeys, rather than the car? The response advised that, where possible, footpaths, cycleways, street lighting, and/or other street furniture should be positioned outside of any protected watercourse and the associated maintenance access strip.
Question 13: Design and Amenity 13c) Are there any specific local issues which need to be addressed through design policies? Issues specifically referred to were the retention of on-site open watercourses and the provision of adequate maintenance strips beside water level and flood risk management systems, including protected watercourses, within the development’s design.
Question 14: Optional Standards 14a) Do you think the Local Plan should include any of the following optional standards (subject to need and viability testing)? If so why?
ii) Water efficiency of new homes The implementation and management, including enforcement, of water efficiency measures for residential, business and other users of potable water. Proposals should include suitable schemes which minimise the need to abstract water from the Main River system to ensure that it is available for other potential water resource uses ie agricultural irrigation, biodiversity, navigation, leisure and tourism etc.
Question 16: Gypsy and Travellers & Question 17: Park Homes and Houseboats 16b) What other suitable locations for Gypsy and Traveller pitches are there? 17) Is there a need for moorings for houseboats or sites for caravans in Fenland? Any evidence to support your comments would be welcome, or suggestions as to how such need could be identified in Fenland In respect of the Middle Level Commissioners’ interests, comment was made that in addition to the normal caravans and "bricks and mortar" sites, suitable locations may need to be considered for "house boats".
Question 24: Natural Environment How do you think the Local Plan should protect and enhance biodiversity and the natural environment? The Conservation Officer advised that the Plan should include recreational and wildlife spaces being created as part of new residential developments and the incorporation of relevant biodiversity measures.
Question 26: Flood & Water Management Do you have any views on how new development could reduce flood risk? Our comments included but were not limited to the following:
• The extent of the Environment Agency's (EA) Indicative Floodplain and the constraint that this imposes on “growth” in the District.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
• All relevant development proposals must be discussed with the relevant RMA including the appropriate Internal Drainage Board at the earliest opportunity, preferably at the pre-application stage.
• In addition to the requirements of the NPPF and associated technical guide, all applications for relevant developments must include a drainage strategy to demonstrate that:
(a) Suitable consideration has been given to the disposal of both surface and treated waste water flows and should detail any mitigation required; (b) Appropriate arrangements have been made for developments adjacent to watercourses; and (c) Issues of long-term ownership, funding and maintenance of the water level and flood risk management system are addressed.
• All proposals should have regard to the guidance and byelaws of the relevant RMA including the Internal Drainage Boards. Where appropriate the contents of hydraulic models and studies, such as the Middle Level Strategic Study must be considered.
Question 27: Any Other Issues Is there anything else you would like to raise – has anything been missed, or are there any general comments you would like to make? It was suggested that the retention and improvement of the rivers, their settings and associated corridors in the District for navigation, environmental, leisure and tourism through the provision of related facilities together with the provision of a Water Space Strategy should be considered.
Question 28: Your Priorities 28b) Please identify any other top priorities. The response advised that the Middle Level Commissioners and associated Boards’/Commissioners’ priorities were:
• To fund, maintain, protect and improve existing and make further provision of viable and appropriate water level and flood risk management infrastructure and systems to reduce the likelihood of harm to people and damage to the economy, environment and society.
• The implementation and management including enforcement of water efficiency measures for residential, business and other users of potable water.
• The retention and improvement of the rivers, their settings and associated corridors in the District for navigation, environmental, leisure and tourism through the provision of related facilities.
• To maintain, protect and improve the existing and make further provision of net gains to achieve environmental benefits to the waterways in the district.
Question 29: Neighbourhood Planning The Council was advised that the “Neighbourhood Area” designation should not unduly affect the Middle Level Commissioners and associated Boards/Commissioners adding that even though a neighbourhood area may have been designated, compliance with the provisions of the appropriate Acts and the relevant RMA's byelaws would still be required.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
The comments received during the consultation have been reviewed and a Key Issues Report has been prepared which summarises the main issues and points of view raised. The report is accompanied by full transcripts of individual's comments. The views expressed in response to the Issues & Options Consultation Document will inform the preparation of the Draft Local Plan.
Level 1 SFRA & WCS documents Royal Haskoning DHV has been appointed to update the Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and Water Cycle Study (WCS) for Fenland District Council as part of the evidence for the new Local Plan.
An Inception Meeting has been held and an information request is currently being processed.
Response to 2020 Revision of Local Validation Guidance During February comments were sought on its Local Validation List which details the documents that are required to 'validate' planning applications.
A similar response to that sent to Cambridgeshire County Council in April 2019, see below, was issued to the District Council for consideration. However, rather than the more promising response received from the County Council the District Council simply advised that:
“The project group have met to consider your comments, and concluded that they relate to the quality of information submitted, and therefore sits with the decision making process rather than the validation process.”
Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC)
Cambridgeshire Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) document No further correspondence has been received in respect of this document.
2019 revision of the Local Validation Guidance List & Local Validation Check List for planning applications for the County Council’s own development & for waste development A report detailing the proposed revisions and the public responses which included responses from various interested parties including the Commissioners, several Parish and Town Councils, and various County Council departments went before the County Councils on 16 May.
A copy of the report can be found on the Council’s webpage by using the following link and searching for “Review of the Local Information Requirements for the Validation of Planning Applications”: https://cmis.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/ccc_live/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/23 2/Committee/8/Default.aspx
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
However, the relevant items, as far as the Commissioners and relevant associated Boards are concerned, are summarised below. “3.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES
3.10 Middle Level Commissioners – Middle Level Commissioners have made a number of comments:
1. The contents of the Middle Level Commissioner’s response of 2017 remain relevant. 2. The Commissioners are pleased to note that the reference in the introduction on page 2 of the 2019 LVL Guidance notes to the use of relevant and competent technical specialists and encourage this. 3. The commissioners and associated boards promote meaningful preapplication advice and work with CCC colleagues to ensure that any issues concerning flood risk, water level management, navigation and environmental issues are dealt with prior to the planning application process, which offers more certainty in the decision making process. The Middle Level Commissioners would be pleased if applicants and/or agents could be advised to contact the Middle Level Commissioners for advice within their jurisdiction. A web site link is given to their pre- and post-application procedure: https://middlelevel.gov.uk/consents/. 4. The Commissioners request that applicants and/or agents are reminded that should planning approval be given by Cambridgeshire County Council, to remind the applicant(s) agent(s) that any matters requiring consent under the requirements of the Land Drainage Act, the Highways Act, the Water Industry Act, the Flood and Water Management Act and/or the Middle Level Act 2018, which relates to navigation related issues, must be complied with before any work is commenced on site. 5. It is requested that any drawings that are submitted to County Council be to a recognised engineering scale including a scale bar and advice on what size of paper the drawing should be printed on. 6. The Commissioners are pleased to note that the reference in the introduction on page 2 of the 2019 LVL Guidance notes to the use of relevant and competent technical specialists and encourage this. 7. The Biodiversity Survey and Report (Paragraph 4) includes reference to the Middle Level Biodiversity Manual (2016), on page 5 - this remains current on 10 April 2019. 8. The Statement of Sustainable Design and Construction (Paragraph 5) includes or the provision of both a foul drainage strategy and water conservation strategy, on pages 6 and 7. This is supported but it is suggested that the latter should be applied County wide and not just applied to the South Cambridgeshire District Council’s area. 9. The Flood Risk Assessment (Paragraph 7) gives a list of application types that is appropriate to provide a Flood Risk Assessment for. The last bullet point (on page 8) refers to developments of: “Less than 1 hectare within flood zone 1 which has critical drainage problems as notified by the Environment Agency.” Unless the area is identified within a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment) the Environment Agency are unlikely to be involved. Drainage is the responsibility of several stakeholders, including Internal Drainage Boards and your Council’s Flood Risk and Biodiversity Team. The latter are more likely to be aware of and have to resolve “critical drainage problems”. It is reassuring to note and we applaud the inclusion of a reference and a link to our “Planning Advice and Consent Documents” webpage on page 9. 10. Additional Plans and Drawings (including cross-sections where required). (Paragraph 22), the inclusion of the section detailing other plans and drawings and suggesting suitable scales for these is noted and supported.”
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
“4.0 Consideration of the Consultation responses
4.10 Middle Level Commissioners –
1. Noted with thanks. No changes required. 2. Pre application advice - References to Middle Level guidance will be retained, so no changes required. 3. References to Middle Level guidance are retained and it is recommended that the Middle Level Commissioners are added to the list of other bodies who provide pre-application advice. 4. Consent under the requirements of the Land Drainage Act is covered when necessary by informative at decision stage. 5. Drawings - This is covered by national guidance, so no changes required. 6. Technical specialists’ reference - Noted with thanks. No changes required. 7. Biodiversity survey - Noted with thanks. No changes required. 8. Statement of Sustainable Design and Construction - This is already covered across all districts based on the relevant adopted policy guidance. The reference to South Cambridgeshire is only made as their requirements are stricter through adopted policy. Therefore no changes are required. 9. Flood Risk Assessment - Officers acknowledge that drainage is the responsibility of several stakeholders and have noted the acceptance to the Middle Level Commissioners planning advice pages. This will be retained on the new guidance and therefore no further changes are required. 10. Additional Plans and drawings - Noted with thanks. No changes required.”
A copy of the Planning Committee Minutes can be viewed via the following link by searching for “Minutes – 16th May 2019”: https://cmis.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/ccc_live/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/23 2/Committee/8/Default.aspx
The final published versions of both the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and the Local Validation List and Guidance Notes can be accessed via the following link: https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/business/planning-and-development/planning-applications/submitting-a- planning-application/
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Flood & Water (C&P FloW) Partnership
The Middle Level Commissioners’ Planning Engineer has represented both the Middle Level Commissioners and their associated Boards since the last Board meeting. The main matters that may be of interest to the Board are as follows:
Future Meetings Following the successful “joint” approach future meetings will involve both the Cambridgeshire Flood Risk Management Partnership (CFRMP) and Peterborough Flood & Water Management Partnership (PFLoW). The MLC are stakeholders in both partnerships.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Draft National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy for England A public consultation on the draft FCERM Strategy for England document was held between May and June 2019.
Members of the partnership generally considered that amongst other matters the consultation could have been more ambitious; sought greater RMA involvement; and that surface water flooding should have been included.
Following the consideration of the responses it is intended to publish the final national FCERM strategy for England in 2020.
Local FRM Strategy Both the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Strategies are due to be reviewed soon and may be a joint Cambridgeshire and Peterborough response.
The Environment Agency’s Joint Assurance Group This group provides support to the RMAs on the delivery of Grant-in-Aid (GiA) funded projects and meets on a monthly basis to discuss business cases.
Partnership members generally agreed that it would be beneficial to understand what the EA, in its role as the approval body, would like to see in business cases and requested suitable good examples that could be used as guidance.
The EA advised that:
(i) The lack of sharing of suitable business case examples may be for GDPR/commercially sensitive/economic reasons and advised that whilst the EA cannot ‘circulate’ these, other RMAs can.
(ii) Due to the specialist nature of projects within The Fens it may not be possible to find enough suitable projects.
Property Flood Resilience Pathfinder Project A £700k grant bid was made by a consortium of LLFAs. Confirmation of a successful bid is awaited.
Further details on the project can be found in Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Evaluation Final Evaluation Report October 2015.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Further information can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/29-million-extra-funding-to-boost-action-on-making-homes-more- resilient-to-floods
Riparian Responsibilities In order to raise awareness of and instigate discussion on an issue that causes difficulties for RMAs, including the Boards, primarily due to increased workload and costs, the County Council’s Flood Risk and Biodiversity Team prepared an “Issues and Options Briefing Note” seeking changes to current practices that are inefficient and create inconsistency across the county in the use of public resources to address the issues associated with riparian assets. The document is currently being considered by the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.
Cambs County Council Capitally Funded Highway Drainage Schemes Schemes have been assessed and prioritised based upon level of flooding reported, ie high priority - is property flooding or risk to life, or low priority - is highway only flooding, and will be developed to provide estimated costs and prioritised to be delivered to available budget. There is an annual highway drainage budget of £1m, which needs to cover all staff, investigation, design and construction costs and, therefore, not all the schemes will be delivered in the current financial year.
The majority of investigation and design is delivered through Skanska or its supply chain, and managed by the County’s Highways Projects team. Priority and funding are confirmed by its Asset Management team.
There are currently 22 schemes ongoing within the County, six of which are within the Fenland district but none are within the Board’s area.
District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) & Water Cycle Study (WCS) documents Most of the SFRA and WCS documents are considered old and have not been updated as initially intended. All will require reviewing as supporting evidence when the respective District Council’s Local Plans are updated.
A ‘joint’ County-wide document was suggested but was not considered possible due to the differing states of the various Local Plans across the County.
No reference was made to the funding arrangements for the provision of the updated documents.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Good Governance for Internal Drainage Board Members In March and April 2019 ADA ran a series of five Good Governance Workshops for IDB Members. The recordings from these events are available as a series of training modules via the ADA website.
A copy of the slides used at the presentation can be found at the following link: https://www.ada.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Good_Governance_Workshop_Slides_2019.pdf
Public Sector Co-operation Agreements (PSCA) Following a problem encountered within North Level District IDB which required close liaison with Peterborough City Council, in its role as the Highway Authority, the possibility of arranging PSCAs with IDBs and Councils was raised but has not yet been concluded.
Updates on Highways England (HE) Scheme The former areas 6 and 8 now form the East Region and the new term contractor is Ringway. The previous short-term Asset Support Contracts (ASC) have been replaced by a 15-year Road Investment Strategy (RIS) contract in order to ensure a consistent long-term approach.
Anglian Water Services Limited (AWSL) Price Review 2019 (PR19) OFWAT like what is being proposed but not the associated costs. AWSL contends that it is trying to be “proactive and not reactive”. Note: In order to reduce charges on its customers AWSL currently appears reluctant to incur any unnecessary additional costs beyond what it is obliged to accept.
Requests have been made for suitable applications to be submitted to its project funding programme. It is hoped that a meeting with AWSL’s Flood Partnership Manager will be arranged soon.
Fenland Flooding Issues Sub-group Meetings were held in April and October 2019. The meeting due to be held during April 2020 was postponed until the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) working restrictions are lifted.
No reports of flooding have been received in respect of Overstone Drive, Coldham.
No new “wet spots” have been identified within the Board’s district.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Flood Risk Management (FRM) for the Fens Technical Group [previously reported as the Future Fenland Project] The Middle Level Commissioners’ Planning Engineer has represented both the Middle Level Commissioners and their associated Boards on the Technical Group since the last Board meeting.
An article detailing the project was included on page 16 of the Summer edition of the ADA Gazette. This can be found at https://flickread.com/edition/html/index.php?pdf=5d1efbbc0a48b#16
The project is further discussed under a separate Agenda item.
Consulting Engineer
4 June 2020
Waldersey(332)\Reports\June 2020
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
Mr Lakey outlined weed control and drain maintenance within the District and referred to a review of the back-up arrangements at South Brink pumping station that had been requested to ensure the Board was prepared in the event of a total power failure. He outlined the position, highlighting the problem regarding a point of access for incoming power cables, and advised that an easy solution would be to replace one of the double air bricks adjacent to the entrance door with a vented lockable steel door that could be opened when required to allow the cables to be installed.
This was discussed and all Members agreed this was the best solution.
Miss Ablett referred to South Brink pumping station where the insulation resistance of the electronic soft starts and the no. 2 motor winding resistance remained quite low and advised that although these continued to be monitored the soft starts, which were 21 years old and obsolete, were starting to fail. She enquired whether the Board wished to consider their replacement which would cost in the region of £5,000 each.
Miss Ablett reported that during an inspection of the weedscreen cleaner it was noted that the catenary cables outer sheath was cracked in two places and, although there were no signs that the inner cores were damaged, as these were the original cables and due to the age of the machine, the Board may wish to consider their replacement. She advised that the cables would cost in the region of £3,000 and as these were not yet urgent these could be done one at a time After some discussion it was agreed that one soft start should be replaced at pump 1 and the weedscreen cables should be replaced.
Miss Ablett further reported that in January the drain water level had been excessively high and a site visit had revealed that both monitors had tripped out on earth leakage, however the cause of this was unknown. She advised that the Consulting Engineer had suggested the Board may wish to consider remote monitoring of the Rings End pumping station and outlined the three options available to the Board.
Members considered the three options and it was agreed a web based ultra-sonic level controller be installed at Rings End pumping station.
Planning applications
Miss Ablett reported there were several items within the Planning Officer’s report for which the Board’s’ instruction was sought.
a) Various developments at Newsham Farm, March Road, Rings End (MLC Ref Nos. 077, 083, 094, 104, 109, 110 & 112)
Miss Ablett referred to the Planning Officer’s comments and reported that he had advised that the “design” rainfall volume was in excess of that designed to be used, so it was likely excess surface water could be discharged into the Board’s drain. She confirmed that the Planning Officer was disputing the calculations with the consultants and enquired whether the Board were happy for him to continue communicating with the Developer and their consultant in an effort to resolve the issues.
b) March to Wisbech Transport Corridor (previously known as the re-opening of the March to Wisbech Rail-line) (MLC Ref No. 113)
Miss Ablett referred to the Planning Officer’s comments and to the those made by the engineering consultant for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority who had advised that all discussions would have to be at the Board’s expense, i.e. meetings etc, which were related to the “Duty to co-operate” protocol. F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
She advised that as the study had recently received more funding the Planning Officer anticipated receiving contact again soon, however, it was difficult to quantify any costs for the coming year at this time.
Miss Ablett enquired whether the Board wished for the Planning Officer to continue to correspond with all parties concerned and attend meetings, where necessary, and confirmed that this would be at no cost to the Board.
c) Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility at Algores Way (MLC Ref No. 116)
Miss Ablett advised that the Planning Officer was currently assessing the implications of the Planning Inspectorate’s opinion and that a conference call meeting was currently being arranged. She confirmed that, once a date was known, the Planning Officer would contact the Chairman and Vice Chairman to enquire whether they would also like to attend.
RESOLVED
i) That the Report and the actions referred to therein be approved.
ii) Weed Control and Drain Maintenance
That the recommendations contained in the Report be adopted.
iii) That Messrs Lankfer be appointed to undertake the Board’s flail mowing and weed basket requirements
iv) South Brink Pumping Station
a) That one of the double air bricks adjacent to the entrance door be replaced and a vented lockable steel door be installed.
b) That one soft start be replaced at pump 1.
c) That the weed screen cables be replaced.
v) That a web based ultra-sonic level controller be installed at Rings End Pumping Station.
vi) That the Middle Level Commissioners’ Planning Officer continue to liaise with all parties in respect of planning matters
B.1165 Capital Improvement Programme
Members considered the Board's future capital improvement programme and noted the significant provision for capital works.
RESOLVED
That the Capital Programme be approved in principle and kept under review.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
B.1166 District Officer’s Report
The Board considered the Report of the District Officer.
RESOLVED
That the Report and the actions referred to therein be approved and that the Officer be thanked for his services over the preceding year.
B.1167 Conservation Officer’s Newsletter and BAP Report
Miss Ablett referred to the Environmental Officer’s Newsletter, dated December 2019, previously circulated to Members.
Members considered and approved the most recent BAP report.
RESOLVED
That no action be taken concerning mink traps at this point.
B.1168 District Officer’s Fee
The Board gave consideration to the District Officer’s' fee for 2020/2021.
RESOLVED
That the Board agree that the sum of £3,540.00 be allowed for the services of the District Officer for 2020/2021.
(NB) – The District Officer declared a financial interest when this item was discussed.
B.1169 State-aided Schemes
Consideration was given to the desirability of undertaking further State-aided Schemes in the District and whether any future proposals should be included in the capital forecasts provided to the Environment Agency.
RESOLVED
That no proposals be formulated at the present time.
B.1170 Environment Agency – Precepts
Miss Ablett reported that the Environment Agency had issued the precept for 2020/2021 in the sum of £2,633.00 (the precept for 2019/2020 being £2,633.00).
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
B.1171 Agricultural Rentals
The Board considered whether any change was appropriate in the level of rental being obtained for the Board’s land, viz:-
4 acres of arable land at Green Drove (OS 796) – Let to Mr J P Smith Present rent - £40 per acre plus drainage rate.
5.794 acres of land at Crooked Bank – Let to Mr G W Lankfer Present rent - £40 per acre plus drainage rate.
RESOLVED
That no change in the level of rental be made.
B.1172 Association of Drainage Authorities Subscriptions
Miss Ablett reported that it was proposed by ADA to increase subscriptions by approximately 2% in 2020, viz:- from £553 to £565.
RESOLVED
That the increased subscription be paid for 2020.
B.1173 Health and Safety
a) Further to minute B.1091(i), in light of the appointment of Cope Safety Management, Miss Ablett reported on the requirement to appoint a member to take on and report to the Board matters relating to Health and Safety.
RESOLVED
That the District Officer continue to deal with and report on Health and Safety matters.
b) Further to minute B.1131, the District Officer referred to the reports received from Cope Safety Management following their visits to the District on the 4th October 2019 and 10th March 2020 and reported that the meetings with COPE Safety Management were useful and had gone well without too many areas of concern being highlighted.
The District Officer advised that it had been recommended that as the existing hazard warning signs at both pumping stations were faded these should be replaced and he confirmed that this had been done.
Miss Ablett reminded the Board that they are responsible for ensuring they are compliant with all Health and Safety legislation and are adequately insured. In view of this, all points for action raised by its’ Health and Safety consultant must be implemented so as to avoid the Board’s insurance policy from becoming invalid.
c) Miss Ablett referred to the ADA Internal Drainage Boards’ Health, Safety & Welfare Survey 2018.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
B.1174 Completion of the Annual Accounts and Annual Return of the Board – 201/2019
a) The Board considered the comments of the Auditors on the Annual Return for the year ended on the 31st March 2019.
RESOLVED
i) That, after fully considering the internal controls put in place by their appointed administrators and the checks carried out by their appointed internal auditors, the Board were satisfied that, in all significant respects, the internal control objectives were being achieved throughout the financial year to a standard adequate to meet the needs of the authority.
ii) That the present policies concerning risk management, budget monitoring and insured value of properties are adequate for the size of the business and that they be continued.
iii) That the Clerk and responsible financial officer review the internal audit strategy with the internal auditor to ensure the most appropriate method is in place to ensure the Board continue to comply with the Internal control objectives to a standard adequate to meet the needs of the authority.
b) The Board considered and approved the Audit Report of the Internal Auditor for the year ended on the 31st March 2019.
B.1175 Defra IDB1 Returns
Miss Ablett referred to the completed IDB1 form for 2018/2019 and to the letter from the Minister and Annual report summary and analysis received from Defra dated August 2019.
B.1176 Budgeting
Miss Ablett referred to the budget comparison of the forecast out-turn and the actual out-turn for the financial year ending 31st March 2020.
B.1177 Review of Internal Controls
The Board considered and expressed satisfaction with the current system of Internal Controls.
B.1178 Risk Management Assessment
a) Miss Ablett reported that it was necessary every 4-5 years to consider the formal Risk Register and in between times to judge the risks when considering the Consulting Engineer's and other reports and when setting budgets and rates/special levies. She advised that these risks had been analysed by the use of the Risk Matrix and added that, although the risk registers for IDBs very rarely changed, they would/could change over time and it was important for Boards to consider formally and that consideration was due this year.
Members considered the Board’s Risk Register.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
RESOLVED
That the Risk Register be approved and kept under review and the policy to review risk between formal reviews be continued.
b) The Board reviewed the insured value of their buildings.
RESOLVED
That, as per the Engineer’s valuation, the insured value of the Board’s’ buildings be increased from 1st April 2020.
B.1179 Exercise of Public Rights
Miss Ablett referred to the publishing of the Notice of Public Rights and publication of unaudited Annual Return, Statement of Accounts, Annual Governance Statement and the Notice of Conclusion of the Audit and right to inspect the Annual Return.
B.1180 Annual Governance Statement – 2019/2020
The Board considered and approved the Annual Governance Statement for the year ended on the 31st March 2020.
RESOLVED
That the Chairman be authorised to sign the Annual Governance Statement, on behalf of the Board, for the financial year ending 31st March 2020.
B.1181 Payments
The Board considered and approved payments amounting to £69,310.61 which had been made during the financial year 2019/2020.
(NB) – The District Officer declared an interest in the payment made to B & J C Wales Services.
(NB) – Mr Harrison declared an interest in the payment made to Harrison Agricultural Contracting Ltd..
(NB) - Councillor Sutton declared an interest (as a member of the Middle Level Board) in the payments made to the Middle Level Commissioners.
B.1182 Annual Accounts of the Board 2019/2020
The Board considered and approved the Annual Accounts and bank reconciliation for the year ended on the 31st March 2020 as required in the Audit Regulations.
RESOLVED
That the Chairman be authorised to sign the Annual Return, on behalf of the Board, for the financial year ending 31st March 2020. F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20
B.1183 Expenditure estimates and special levy and drainage rate requirements 2020/2021
The Board considered estimates of expenditure and proposals for special levy and drainage rates in respect of the financial year 2020/2021 and were informed by Miss Ablett that under the Land Drainage Act 1991 the proportions of their net expenditure to be met by drainage rates on agricultural hereditaments and by special levy on local billing authorities would be respectively 85.25% and 14.75%.
RESOLVED
i) That the estimates be approved.
ii) That a total sum of £65,773 be raised by drainage rates and special levy.
iii) That the amounts comprised in the sum referred to in ii) above to be raised by drainage rates and to be met by special levy are £56,072 and £9,701 respectively.
iv) That a rate of 20.00p in the £ be laid and assessed on Agricultural hereditaments in the District.
v) That a Special levy of £9,701 be made and issued to Fenland District Council for the purpose of meeting such expenditure.
vi) That the seal of the Board be affixed to the record of drainage rates and special levies and to the special levy referred to in resolution (v).
vii) That the Clerk be authorised to recover all unpaid rates and levy by such statutory powers as may be available.
B.1184 Display of rate notice
RESOLVED
That notice of the rate be affixed within the District in accordance with Section 48(3)(a) of the Land Drainage Act 1991.
B.1185 Date of next Meeting
RESOLVED
That the next Meeting of the Board be held on Wednesday the 23rd June 2021 provided this date does not clash with Cereals 2021.
F:\Admin\BrendaM\Word\Waldersey\mins\17.6.20